Hi to all,
It has been a while since my last posting. I hope you will find this one of interest.
The link (below) will take you to the Live Reef Fish Bulletin, where three articles dealing with the conservation of Banggai cardinalfish were published and can be freely accessed.
I was invited to write a paper about my experience with the proposal to include the Banggai cardinalfish in CITES and its conservation status. In my paper I summarize the biological characteristics of the BC and point out their value from a biological and ecological stand point. I describe the current conservation situation of the species based on data from my last fieldwork in the Banggai Archipelago, including collecting pressure, population situation, and habitat degradation. Then, I relate in some detail what happened with the proposal, from my original recommendation until its defeat at The Hague, exposing the truth about several issues that have been intentionally misrepresented by both government officials and economic interest groups.
With regards to the other two articles dealing with Banggai conservation, I think both are particularly revealing about the truth behind the Indonesian claims of conservation actions directed to the Banggai cardinalfish before the CITES meeting (June 2007).
Also, they clearly show, unfortunately, the official disregard about their compromise about setting a responsible management plan, as promised during the CITES meeting One of the papers is written by who was recently contracted by the local government to help to develop a management plan on Banggai cardinalfish. The author’s writing clearly evidence his lack of qualification for this work.
I will leave to you the judgment of these contrasted versions of the Banggai cardinalfish reality. However, I want to correct a few claims about biological aspects of BC that were published in one of the papers before anybody in the hobbyist community get confuse.
So, here are the papers: http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/LRF/18/index.htm
And here some of my big concerns (in bold)
On Mr. Lilley ‘s paper:
Page 3 (intro): “...because of concerns from some quarters that over-collection might lead to its extinction in the wild. Several BCF population studies point to this possibility (Kolm and Berglund 2003; Vagelli and Erdmann 2002; author’s observations) but accurate current wild population estimates are still unavailable.â€Â
Current wild population studies are available and were judged accurate enough to be used by IUCN in order to include this species in the red list as endangered.
Page 4: “Some of these villagers do farm very small plots of land, but access to fresh water is a problem, and soil productivity is low. Most of their income is derived from the local sale of marine products, including food fish, octopus, squid, groupers and sea cucumbers. They also sometimes catch BCF and other marine fish species for the aquarium trade. More recently, villagers have begun to supplement their incomes by farming seaweed. These people are very poor, and the sales of BCF do have a significant positive impact on the livelihoods of at least several hundred families.â€Â
How can this be: a.) most of the local people’s income comes from all of the above cited, and b.) they sometimes catch BCF; yet, this activity has a significant impact on several hundred families! (not even mentioning that there are less than 100 people dedicated to the collection of BC.)
Page 5: “According to the collectors, BCF populations occur around many of the 123 islands in the Banggai Archipelago, but there was general agreement among collectors interviewed that these populations may be suffering from overexploitation.â€Â
The Banggai Archipelago comprises less than half of these imaginary 123 islands. There are about 60 islands with a size of about 1 km or larger. In fact, the Banggai cardinalfish occurs in only 32 islands within the entire Archipelago.
Page 6: “BCF live in groups in and among coral heads, anemones, seagrass, jellyfish, and sea urchins (Fig. 4). If the reef is badly degraded or there are high levels of nitrates in the water (i.e. near dwellings, piers and raw sewage outlets), algal growth is encouraged, which in turn promotes the proliferation of black long-spined sea urchins, Diadema setosum. In areas where the coral cover has been destroyed and the reef flat is covered in algae, numerous groups of Diadema sea urchins become the main refuges for BCF.â€Â
BC living with jellyfish?? (more below) High levels of nitrates? Where? Inside the Banggai harbor? Algae growth caused by nitrates, therefore leading to urchins? This may be part of a marine biology course, but is not the reality in Banggai. There is no connection between urchin use by BC and coral cover being destroyed. Urchins (together with anemones and branching corals) are substrates with which BC is naturally associated. In areas where coral cover is destroyed by dynamite, BC is absent.
“Indeed, the sea urchin is a favored hiding place for BCF, and the black and white striped patterns of this fish make it difficult to see when it retreats among urchins’ spines (N. Kolm, Uppsala University, pers. comm. 2008).â€Â
First, I do not agree. Besides that urchins are used by species with different coloration patterns. However, this is a subjective matter. The interesting part here is that the author relays in somebody else personal communication in order to describe a simple observation.
“The fish were also observed swimming very close to the walls of piers. In other words, it seems likely that, once the reef has been degraded and there are no more corals or seagrass in which BCF can hide, they will “make do†with hiding in the sea urchins, which proliferate when the area becomes covered in algae.â€Â
The few piers constructed in the Banggai region do not represent the natural oceanographic environment of the Banggai islands, where over 96% of the BC population is found. Evidently the author is not familiar with published work on the ecology of the species. BC rarely is found in any low cover- rubble -open area. The overwhelming majority of BC inhabit both coral reefs and seagrass beds, which are not being diminished. In fact, the largest group ever localized was found within seagrass beds associated with anemones. After that one, the largest groups were found in both seagrass and coral reef areas associated with urchins.
“Although not observed firsthand, the team was told that BCF could occur in significant numbers in association with a certain (unidentified) species of jellyfish. Because BCF have a very low capacity for dispersal, as they do not have a pelagic larval stage, it might be that the jellyfish provide a means of dispersal for BCF by passive drifting on ocean currents. It is important to understand this and other dispersal mechanisms for species management purposes. DNA studies (Hoffman et al. 2005) indicate significant genetic differences within BCF sub-populations, which need to be preserved for the continued well-being of the species.â€Â
Let’s assume that BC can disperse pelagically associated with the tentacles of large jellyfish!! able to drift about 30 cm off the bottom without becoming tangled in urchin spines, coral branches, seagrass leaves, etc., and that BC somehow can move away from the reef protected by the jellies (that coincidentally happen to drift where the BC are located and eager to move with them), and assume that they are able to drift with "ocean currents." Now, how can this amazing statement be reconciled with the very next one: that DNA studies by Hoffman et al found such large genetic differences among populations (which is only possible if the populations remain isolated without gene exchange for very long periods of time)??, and how do we reconcile that assumption (which the author found credible enough to mention) with the fact that this species does not occur naturally outside the Banggai Archipelago? Can this occur because the aforementioned ocean currents taking the jellyfish loaded with BC only exist between a few very closely localized islands?
The facts are: a) large (easily seen by the naked eye) jellyfish are conspicuously absent in the Banggais (and it is hard to imagine jellies easily drifting in the shallow areas inhabited by BC).
b.) BC do not associate with planktonic jellyfish, nor with any pelagic organism. BC is a sedentary species that remains attached to benthic living substrates. They display highly developed homing behavior and never remain higher than about 1m in the water column above substrates, but more commonly less than half of that height.
Could the author have understood “jellyfish†when in reality he was told “anemones??â€Â
Page 10: â€ÂInstead of relying on foreign researchers to undertake this kind of work, as is currently the case, it would be more cost-effective to support the development of a long-term research programme that involves the training of local Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries staff, students and local researchers in various survey methodologies.â€Â
It sounds good, but relying on foreign researchers? I am not aware of any Indonesian organization or institution that relies on them. Cost-effective?? I am not aware of any Indonesian organization that has financially collaborated with any research conducted on BC.
Well, I am sure you will find few more passages interesting.
Concerning the other paper, I would like to point out the following:
Page 14: “During the meeting, one participant (and only one) proposed that the significance to the local economy of the current (unsustainable) level of harvest of Pterapogon kauderni was very modest, and that less than 0.1% of the local people were involved in the BCF trade (which began only about 12 years ago).â€Â
That "only one person" was the "only one" among all the attendees who had and presented information on the issue being discussed, the only one who visited all BC capture centers, and who met the fishers and buyers. In short, this person was the only one who had valid data about the topic being decided on (whether or not to support the BC proposal).
“It was recognized that even when fish collecting is considered to be artisanal, and the number of people involved is small, the impacts can be substantial. The fishers are members of closely knit family groups and clans whose deep social coherence means that the benefits of the fishery carry well beyond the fishers themselves.â€Â
There are about 80 people actively involved in BC capture. The income generated by this activity barely could sustain those dedicated to it (this is why they also are engaged in traditional economic activities). Depending on where you obtain the information, the current population in the Banggai islands is between 160,000 and 300,000 people. Even assuming the first figure is the correct one, I don’t see how the economic gains from the capture/selling of BC at ~US$ 2-3 per fish could be of any significant impact in the overall economy/employment of the Banggai region.
I know this has been a very long post. If you are still reading, it is because the subject is important to you and/or you want to know my opinion about it.
Thank you for your interest and time. I hope the articles and this writing will give you a good idea of what is real about the Banggai cardinalfish conservation situation. Also, I hope that after reading all this material you will have a better understanding of the difficulties that are facing CITES proposals aimed at including species that are threatened in the wild by international trade.
Finally, I take this opportunity to encourage every Banggai cardinalfish fan to stop buying wild-caught specimens.
Remember that specimens purchased at a local store represent lucky survivors of groups captured and held in nets for days or weeks. Some individuals from those groups die in those nets, and many more during the 24-72 hours of precarious transport from the nets to a buyer facility, while others are “discarded†because of damaged fins before exportation. Some individuals from those groups die after the first flight between Indonesia and Singapore, and others upon arrival in the USA, Europe, or Asia. In fact, many times entire shipments of those survivors die soon upon arrival to a wholesaler facility.
You have the power of deciding the future of this endangered species. I believe that carries a high degree of responsibility. If neither the conservation agencies nor the host country are willing to protect it, what will determine the future of this species is your decision of whether or not to buy wild-caught specimens.
I urge the hobbyist community to avoid acquiring wild-caught Banggais until proper protective measures/trade regulations are in place (CITES or equivalent).
My hope is that most hobbyists will be willing to pay a few extra dollars for captive bred individuals, knowing that they can have the enjoyment of keeping this amazing fish without contributing to the demise of its natural populations.
Thank you,
Alejandro Vagelli
It has been a while since my last posting. I hope you will find this one of interest.
The link (below) will take you to the Live Reef Fish Bulletin, where three articles dealing with the conservation of Banggai cardinalfish were published and can be freely accessed.
I was invited to write a paper about my experience with the proposal to include the Banggai cardinalfish in CITES and its conservation status. In my paper I summarize the biological characteristics of the BC and point out their value from a biological and ecological stand point. I describe the current conservation situation of the species based on data from my last fieldwork in the Banggai Archipelago, including collecting pressure, population situation, and habitat degradation. Then, I relate in some detail what happened with the proposal, from my original recommendation until its defeat at The Hague, exposing the truth about several issues that have been intentionally misrepresented by both government officials and economic interest groups.
With regards to the other two articles dealing with Banggai conservation, I think both are particularly revealing about the truth behind the Indonesian claims of conservation actions directed to the Banggai cardinalfish before the CITES meeting (June 2007).
Also, they clearly show, unfortunately, the official disregard about their compromise about setting a responsible management plan, as promised during the CITES meeting One of the papers is written by who was recently contracted by the local government to help to develop a management plan on Banggai cardinalfish. The author’s writing clearly evidence his lack of qualification for this work.
I will leave to you the judgment of these contrasted versions of the Banggai cardinalfish reality. However, I want to correct a few claims about biological aspects of BC that were published in one of the papers before anybody in the hobbyist community get confuse.
So, here are the papers: http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/LRF/18/index.htm
And here some of my big concerns (in bold)
On Mr. Lilley ‘s paper:
Page 3 (intro): “...because of concerns from some quarters that over-collection might lead to its extinction in the wild. Several BCF population studies point to this possibility (Kolm and Berglund 2003; Vagelli and Erdmann 2002; author’s observations) but accurate current wild population estimates are still unavailable.â€Â
Current wild population studies are available and were judged accurate enough to be used by IUCN in order to include this species in the red list as endangered.
Page 4: “Some of these villagers do farm very small plots of land, but access to fresh water is a problem, and soil productivity is low. Most of their income is derived from the local sale of marine products, including food fish, octopus, squid, groupers and sea cucumbers. They also sometimes catch BCF and other marine fish species for the aquarium trade. More recently, villagers have begun to supplement their incomes by farming seaweed. These people are very poor, and the sales of BCF do have a significant positive impact on the livelihoods of at least several hundred families.â€Â
How can this be: a.) most of the local people’s income comes from all of the above cited, and b.) they sometimes catch BCF; yet, this activity has a significant impact on several hundred families! (not even mentioning that there are less than 100 people dedicated to the collection of BC.)
Page 5: “According to the collectors, BCF populations occur around many of the 123 islands in the Banggai Archipelago, but there was general agreement among collectors interviewed that these populations may be suffering from overexploitation.â€Â
The Banggai Archipelago comprises less than half of these imaginary 123 islands. There are about 60 islands with a size of about 1 km or larger. In fact, the Banggai cardinalfish occurs in only 32 islands within the entire Archipelago.
Page 6: “BCF live in groups in and among coral heads, anemones, seagrass, jellyfish, and sea urchins (Fig. 4). If the reef is badly degraded or there are high levels of nitrates in the water (i.e. near dwellings, piers and raw sewage outlets), algal growth is encouraged, which in turn promotes the proliferation of black long-spined sea urchins, Diadema setosum. In areas where the coral cover has been destroyed and the reef flat is covered in algae, numerous groups of Diadema sea urchins become the main refuges for BCF.â€Â
BC living with jellyfish?? (more below) High levels of nitrates? Where? Inside the Banggai harbor? Algae growth caused by nitrates, therefore leading to urchins? This may be part of a marine biology course, but is not the reality in Banggai. There is no connection between urchin use by BC and coral cover being destroyed. Urchins (together with anemones and branching corals) are substrates with which BC is naturally associated. In areas where coral cover is destroyed by dynamite, BC is absent.
“Indeed, the sea urchin is a favored hiding place for BCF, and the black and white striped patterns of this fish make it difficult to see when it retreats among urchins’ spines (N. Kolm, Uppsala University, pers. comm. 2008).â€Â
First, I do not agree. Besides that urchins are used by species with different coloration patterns. However, this is a subjective matter. The interesting part here is that the author relays in somebody else personal communication in order to describe a simple observation.
“The fish were also observed swimming very close to the walls of piers. In other words, it seems likely that, once the reef has been degraded and there are no more corals or seagrass in which BCF can hide, they will “make do†with hiding in the sea urchins, which proliferate when the area becomes covered in algae.â€Â
The few piers constructed in the Banggai region do not represent the natural oceanographic environment of the Banggai islands, where over 96% of the BC population is found. Evidently the author is not familiar with published work on the ecology of the species. BC rarely is found in any low cover- rubble -open area. The overwhelming majority of BC inhabit both coral reefs and seagrass beds, which are not being diminished. In fact, the largest group ever localized was found within seagrass beds associated with anemones. After that one, the largest groups were found in both seagrass and coral reef areas associated with urchins.
“Although not observed firsthand, the team was told that BCF could occur in significant numbers in association with a certain (unidentified) species of jellyfish. Because BCF have a very low capacity for dispersal, as they do not have a pelagic larval stage, it might be that the jellyfish provide a means of dispersal for BCF by passive drifting on ocean currents. It is important to understand this and other dispersal mechanisms for species management purposes. DNA studies (Hoffman et al. 2005) indicate significant genetic differences within BCF sub-populations, which need to be preserved for the continued well-being of the species.â€Â
Let’s assume that BC can disperse pelagically associated with the tentacles of large jellyfish!! able to drift about 30 cm off the bottom without becoming tangled in urchin spines, coral branches, seagrass leaves, etc., and that BC somehow can move away from the reef protected by the jellies (that coincidentally happen to drift where the BC are located and eager to move with them), and assume that they are able to drift with "ocean currents." Now, how can this amazing statement be reconciled with the very next one: that DNA studies by Hoffman et al found such large genetic differences among populations (which is only possible if the populations remain isolated without gene exchange for very long periods of time)??, and how do we reconcile that assumption (which the author found credible enough to mention) with the fact that this species does not occur naturally outside the Banggai Archipelago? Can this occur because the aforementioned ocean currents taking the jellyfish loaded with BC only exist between a few very closely localized islands?
The facts are: a) large (easily seen by the naked eye) jellyfish are conspicuously absent in the Banggais (and it is hard to imagine jellies easily drifting in the shallow areas inhabited by BC).
b.) BC do not associate with planktonic jellyfish, nor with any pelagic organism. BC is a sedentary species that remains attached to benthic living substrates. They display highly developed homing behavior and never remain higher than about 1m in the water column above substrates, but more commonly less than half of that height.
Could the author have understood “jellyfish†when in reality he was told “anemones??â€Â
Page 10: â€ÂInstead of relying on foreign researchers to undertake this kind of work, as is currently the case, it would be more cost-effective to support the development of a long-term research programme that involves the training of local Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries staff, students and local researchers in various survey methodologies.â€Â
It sounds good, but relying on foreign researchers? I am not aware of any Indonesian organization or institution that relies on them. Cost-effective?? I am not aware of any Indonesian organization that has financially collaborated with any research conducted on BC.
Well, I am sure you will find few more passages interesting.
Concerning the other paper, I would like to point out the following:
Page 14: “During the meeting, one participant (and only one) proposed that the significance to the local economy of the current (unsustainable) level of harvest of Pterapogon kauderni was very modest, and that less than 0.1% of the local people were involved in the BCF trade (which began only about 12 years ago).â€Â
That "only one person" was the "only one" among all the attendees who had and presented information on the issue being discussed, the only one who visited all BC capture centers, and who met the fishers and buyers. In short, this person was the only one who had valid data about the topic being decided on (whether or not to support the BC proposal).
“It was recognized that even when fish collecting is considered to be artisanal, and the number of people involved is small, the impacts can be substantial. The fishers are members of closely knit family groups and clans whose deep social coherence means that the benefits of the fishery carry well beyond the fishers themselves.â€Â
There are about 80 people actively involved in BC capture. The income generated by this activity barely could sustain those dedicated to it (this is why they also are engaged in traditional economic activities). Depending on where you obtain the information, the current population in the Banggai islands is between 160,000 and 300,000 people. Even assuming the first figure is the correct one, I don’t see how the economic gains from the capture/selling of BC at ~US$ 2-3 per fish could be of any significant impact in the overall economy/employment of the Banggai region.
I know this has been a very long post. If you are still reading, it is because the subject is important to you and/or you want to know my opinion about it.
Thank you for your interest and time. I hope the articles and this writing will give you a good idea of what is real about the Banggai cardinalfish conservation situation. Also, I hope that after reading all this material you will have a better understanding of the difficulties that are facing CITES proposals aimed at including species that are threatened in the wild by international trade.
Finally, I take this opportunity to encourage every Banggai cardinalfish fan to stop buying wild-caught specimens.
Remember that specimens purchased at a local store represent lucky survivors of groups captured and held in nets for days or weeks. Some individuals from those groups die in those nets, and many more during the 24-72 hours of precarious transport from the nets to a buyer facility, while others are “discarded†because of damaged fins before exportation. Some individuals from those groups die after the first flight between Indonesia and Singapore, and others upon arrival in the USA, Europe, or Asia. In fact, many times entire shipments of those survivors die soon upon arrival to a wholesaler facility.
You have the power of deciding the future of this endangered species. I believe that carries a high degree of responsibility. If neither the conservation agencies nor the host country are willing to protect it, what will determine the future of this species is your decision of whether or not to buy wild-caught specimens.
I urge the hobbyist community to avoid acquiring wild-caught Banggais until proper protective measures/trade regulations are in place (CITES or equivalent).
My hope is that most hobbyists will be willing to pay a few extra dollars for captive bred individuals, knowing that they can have the enjoyment of keeping this amazing fish without contributing to the demise of its natural populations.
Thank you,
Alejandro Vagelli
